It appearing on the report of the Division that fewer than 40 Members were present, Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided.

Julie Morgan: It is a mixture of both, and I shall deal with that subject later in my speech.
	I shall not speak at length about the scientific evidence on second-hand smoke. The case has been made, I do not think that many people challenge it, and it is almost universally accepted. I simply point out that tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals in the form of particles and gases, some 60 of which are known or suspected carcinogens, including carbon monoxide, ammonia, benzene, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
	The scientific evidence is well summarised in the latest report of the Government's own Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, which comprises 15 of the most eminent medical experts in the country. The report was published along with the White Paper on public health in November last year. The committee reported that exposure to second-hand smoke increased the risk of contracting lung cancer and heart disease by about a quarter. That is very damning evidence. The committee described second-hand smoke as
	"a controllable and preventable form of indoor air pollution"
	and as
	"a substantial public health hazard".
	The report concludes:
	"It is evident that no infant, child or adult should be exposed to secondhand smoke".
	Surely it behoves us to do something about that. The report was very decisive, and it is our duty as politicians to ensure that its recommendations are taken up.
	Of course, not everybody accepts that evidence. The latest annual report of British American Tobacco still claims that
	"there is no convincing evidence that environmental tobacco smoke exposure genuinely increases the risk of non-smokers developing lung cancer or heart disease".
	That wilful refusal to accept scientific evidence is aped by tobacco industry-funded pressure groups such as Forest, which came to the public meeting that I held in my constituency. Its representative refused to accept the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion.
	Using the Government committee's figures, Professor Konrad Jamrozik of the university of Queensland has estimated in the British Medical Journal that exposure to other people's smoke in the workplace causes more than 600 premature deaths across the UK every year. That can be compared with the total number of deaths in the UK from all industrial accidents, which the Health and Safety Executive reported to be 235 in 2003. We can add to the figures for premature deaths the evidence that second-hand smoke causes many thousands of episodes of illness. For example, a recent Department of Health survey shows that people who are exposed to other people's tobacco smoke for six or more hours a week are 50 per cent. more likely than those who are not exposed in that way to develop asthma symptoms and breathlessness, coughing and wheezing.
	At the public meeting that I held, one woman said that she was very nervous about coming to the meeting because she was afraid that somebody might light a cigarette in defiance. She said that she would virtually collapse if cigarette smoke affected her, and she was very frightened about going out to any public place. I also feel very strongly about this matter, as three members of my close family are asthmatics, and I know the effect that going into a smoky room can have, with streaming eyes and coughing. It seems very unfair that people are unable to benefit from smoke-free air when they go out for the evening, for example.
	Asthma UK states that one in five people with asthma are prevented from using parts of their workplace where people smoke because of cigarette fumes. Cigarette smoke is the second most common asthma trigger in the workplace. In the face of that, who can deny that smoking is a major workplace health and safety issue? Who can deny that employees who are regularly exposed to other people's smoke day after day and night after night are at real risk? That is why the Government committee singled out bar staff, for example, as an occupational group that is heavily exposed to this unnecessary and serious hazard. When we go into bars in city centres, which are often frequented by very young people, there is a fog of smoke. Those young people are spending many hours in that smoky atmosphere, so bars are a particular issue.
	The scientific evidence also shows that there is no satisfactory way of eliminating the risks of second-hand smoke in enclosed public places short of ending smoking. The lobby saying that it is possible to use ventilation to get rid of the smoke is completely mistaken. Despite the best endeavours of the tobacco industry to promote ventilation as a solution to the problem, no ventilation system will be fully effective. Smoke spreads, and it is not possible to prevent people who are in the same room with someone who is smoking from being affected by that smoke. The atmospheric physicist James Repace has stated that such a system would require air cycling rates of "tornado-like" force. It might almost be worth the absurd expense of installing such a system to watch some of the opponents of action on second-hand smoke trying to light a cigarette when it was in operation. It is now generally accepted that we cannot get rid of tobacco smoke.
	Of course, under the Bill, it would be for the National Assembly for Wales to decide what restrictions on smoking it introduced. Good employers in the pub and restaurant trade are already heading in the right direction. The pub chain Wetherspoons, for example, has announced that its 650 pubs will be smoke free by the end of 2006, which is two years earlier than the Government proposes in the White Paper. I believe that that is a commercial decision, as I think that many more people will go to pubs and restaurants if they know that there will be no smoke there.
	In south Wales, Brains has announced the launch of smoke-free pubs in the Cardiff area. The Aubrey Arms in the Vale of Glamorgan is already smoke free, and the Cottage pub in the centre of Cardiff has recently become so. I welcome such moves. The move towards recognising the danger of tobacco smoke, including through passive smoking, has been very swift. If we had had this debate two years ago, there would have been much more opposition. There has been a huge change in the views of the public, and voluntary steps, such as those that I have mentioned, have been taken.
	Overall, however, progress has been slow. Using data from the Government's labour force survey and the Office for National Statistics survey "Smoking-related behaviours and attitudes", Action on Smoking and Health, or ASH, has calculated that more than 130,000 employees in Wales are still routinely exposed to other people's smoke throughout their place of work—one in 10 of the work force. More than 500,000 people—four in 10 of the total work force—work in places where smoking is permitted somewhere on the premises. The case for a new law is that it will bring the worst up to the standard of the best, because good things are already happening.
	When the National Assembly for Wales made a decision about this matter, it would also need to make a judgment on what impact restrictions on smoking in workplaces and public places might have on trade and jobs. I know that it is considering that issue, and that evidence has been given to the Assembly Committee that is currently engaged in consultation. I would argue that we already know more than enough to dismiss the wild assertions of the tobacco trade and some of the more unreconstructed elements of the hospitality industry.
	Hon. Members will probably remember the braying and bleating from tobacco interests and the bar trade in New York when that city wisely acted to end smoking in all workplaces and public places. We were told that trade would slump dramatically; a 30 per cent. decrease was the usual forecast, but I do not know what it was based on. As always, it has taken about a year to get a real idea of the effect and for objective evidence to be collected.
	In March 2004, the city's finance, health, small business and economic development departments got together to look at the facts, and here they are: business tax receipts in restaurants and bars are up by 8.7 per cent.; employment in restaurants and bars has increased by 10,600 jobs since the enactment of that law; 97 per cent. of restaurants and bars are smoke free; and New Yorkers overwhelmingly support the law. Air quality in bars and restaurants has improved dramatically: levels of cotinine, a by-product of tobacco, decreased by 85 per cent. in non-smoking workers in bars and restaurants, and 150,000 fewer New Yorkers are exposed to second-hand smoke on the job. What a success. Taking a bold initiative, and leading as politicians should lead, can achieve success in the way that I have described. If the National Assembly for Wales wants the same benefit for the people of Wales, I believe that we should give it the power to achieve that.
	I also visited Ireland with the all-party group on smoking and health. In May last year, no-smoking legislation was introduced in Ireland, and it will be interesting to see an evaluation of what has happened after a year. What we saw in Ireland was very impressive, and I was most impressed that everybody whom we met totally accepts the law. In Dublin we visited some bars and restaurants where the smokers, who were not complaining, were outside. A lot of smokers support this Bill, because most smokers want to give up, and feel that the fewer opportunities they have to smoke, the better it is for them. The all-party group was very positive about the move in Ireland.
	The people of Wales and the Assembly should be concerned about smoking in workplaces and public places. The Assembly has responsibility for matters relating to health, but to improve the health of the people in Wales, it must be able to tackle the problems caused by the consumption of tobacco. If it is not allowed to tackle the extensive problems caused by second-hand smoke, it is being asked to provide health care without the powers it needs to be fully effective.
	The Assembly has sought such powers. On 22 January 2003, Alun Pugh AM moved a motion recommending to Parliament the enactment of legislation prohibiting smoking in public places in Wales. Assembly Members were given a free vote, and they approved the resolution by 39 votes to 10, with majorities in all four parties in favour. Indeed, all four party leaders and all four party health spokespeople voted for the resolution. A cross-party Assembly Committee is currently considering the issue. It is travelling around Wales and taking evidence from businesses, health groups and the public, and it will report back in May. I am confident that it will repeat the call for the Assembly to get the powers that it needs to act.
	The Assembly's view is clearly in line with the majority of Welsh people. In a MORI survey in May 2004, 54 per cent. of respondents in Wales strongly supported a law to ensure that all enclosed workplaces are smoke free, and a further 24 per cent. tended to support the proposals. The majority among the public is clear.

Kevin Barron: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) on her position in the ballot. She beat me by one place, and consequently I may or may not have my own Second Reading on 8 April—we shall have to wait and see whether events take over. I congratulate her even more on selecting the subject of the effect of second-hand smoke on the public's health.
	I do not have a great deal of contact with the Principality of Wales, although I have a village in my constituency called Wales, which boasts Wales high school, one of the best high schools in England in terms of academic attainment. Under an earlier Administration in the 1980s, I once wrote to the Education Department about the problems in Wales high school and the letter was promptly sent off to the Welsh Office. I was a bit worried that people thought that there was only one secondary school in the Principality of Wales, but I eventually got the problem sorted out.
	I want to refer particularly to the Government's White Paper, which was published last November. It states:
	"The evidence of risk to health from exposure to second-hand smoke points towards an excess number of deaths, although the debate on the precise scale of the impact continues. The consultation demonstrated clear concern about both the health impact and discomfort felt by many in smoke-filled environments, with particular concerns about locations such as work places, where people may not have been able to choose to be in a smoke-free environment."
	Some of that language is rather curious. It says that the evidence "points towards" excess deaths and, particularly unhelpfully, that
	"debate on the precise scale of the impact continues."
	Of course, that debate has continued for many years. The tobacco industry will not accept the clear medical evidence and has for decades used spurious means of trying to talk down the health issues around secondary smoking and to claim that they are not clearly seen.
	That is absolutely wrong. The evidence of risks to health and of a significant number of deaths is clear and overwhelming, and it was well summarised by the Government's Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health last November when it published its executive summary alongside the White Paper. Let me remind the House what the Government's own committee, which advises them on matters relating to health and smoking, said:
	"There is an increased risk of lung cancer for non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke of about 24 per cent.
	There is an increased risk of . . . heart disease for non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke . . . 'the increased risk associated with exposure to secondhand smoke is in the order of 25 per cent.'.
	Children are at particular risk from secondhand smoke—'the evidence strongly links secondhand smoke with an increased risk of pneumonia and bronchitis, asthma attacks, middle ear disease, decreased lung function and sudden infant death syndrome. It has also been shown that babies born to mothers who come into contact with second-hand smoke have lower birth weights.'"
	Sadly, the medical profession in this country sees such cases daily, yet the Government do not present the facts as they should. The committee continued:
	"The evidence published since 1998 points to an association between secondhand smoke and respiratory symptoms and reduced lung functions in adults."
	The Government's advisers have said, not just recently but for decades, that second-hand smoke damages the public's health.
	Nowhere in the White Paper is there an estimate of the number of employees who are exposed to second-hand smoke at work. It may be my right to go into a smoky atmosphere for a drink or a meal, but what about those who work in such places? What right do the people who work in the Strangers Bar have—until after Easter—not to work in a smoke-filled atmosphere?
	It is relatively easy to estimate how many people suffer second-hand smoke at work. Some of the essential statistics are given in paragraph 8 of the regulatory impact assessment with support from the Office for National Statistics and using data from the Government's labour force survey for 2003 and the national statistics ombudsman's survey. Action on Smoking and Health, of which I am a long-standing member and supporter, calculated that some 2.1 million people in the UK work in places with no restriction on smoking, which is 8 per cent. of those who work. Some 10.3 million people work in places where smoking takes place in designated areas, which is 38 per cent. of those who work. There is little or no protection in reality for many of those people.
	I have evidence from the British Medical Association. Some people may argue that is anecdotal, but it relates to what doctors say about smoking. Doctors do not just see patients; they are citizens of this country and, like us, go to restaurants, pubs and so on. Dr. Peter Maguire, who practices in Northern Ireland, said:
	"I recently visited the now smoke free bars and restaurants of New York and they are great, just like in Ireland. I visited a close family friend who is a bar owner and is now dying from sinus and throat cancer. He has never smoked but until recently, worked in smoky bars. The smoke free legislation in New York has come too late to save him. When I left New York I knew I would never see him alive again. He is one of many people who have been harmed by smoky environments. The New York law is working well and is accepted as it has been in Ireland."
	My wife and I spent the new year before last in New York and it was a pleasure to stay in hotels and eat in restaurants where there was no smoking. There were butt tubs outside so that people can extinguish their cigarettes before going into the premises. That was in stark contrast to my many previous visits when the atmosphere in bars was very smoky.
	Dr. Mary Wheater of King's Lynn said:
	"The most serious effects are on the smallest children. Young babies are admitted to our paediatric ward with wheezing which improves away from cigarette smoke and worsens again as soon as they go home. Older children are affected too. A teenager of my acquaintance, who has asthma, finds that her nights out are ruined by having to retreat to her car to take her inhalers because the smoke in her favourite night club makes her chest so tight she cannot dance."
	People may argue that that is anecdotal, but it is clear evidence from health professionals who work with patients almost every day of their lives about the effects of secondary smoking. The Government should not ignore that.
	Other issues arise in smoke-free areas. New York city was challenged several times in the courts when its ban was introduced and its law department issued a press release about a decision that was made on Wednesday 7 April. It stated:
	"The plaintiff alleged that the Smoke-Free Air Act violated smokers' rights to freedom of association, assembly, speech and travel, and unlawfully discriminated against smokers. The Court rejected all of the plaintiff's arguments. The Court noted that 'smokers remain free to associate and assemble as they please, to smoke or not, whether it be in a bar, a restaurant, a city street or any other place where it is otherwise permissible to do so.' As to the plaintiff's free speech claim, the Court stated that is 'is not persuaded by the general proposition that a smoker's prevailing motivation for smoking a cigarette, whether it is done in a bar, restaurant or on a city street, is to convey a message with some profound expressive content to those around him."
	I know that some hon. Members would argue that they have a right to smoke.
	The law in America is different from ours. The plaintiff's equal protection challenge was rejected and
	"the Court noted . . . 'mounting evidence against ETS'"—
	environmental tobacco smoke or, as we would call it, second-hand smoke—
	"'as a basis' for the law."
	The press release quoted the testimony of several people and it was clear that the challenge failed because of the consequences of environmental tobacco smoke on public health and people who use such areas.
	On Thursday 11 November Action on Smoking and Health issued a news release headed "Smoke and Mirrors: How Philip Morris concealed the truth about secondhand smoke". It goes into detail about how Philip Morris, a large international tobacco company, had set up a laboratory in Germany many years ago to carry out tests on the effects of second-hand smoke and direct smoke on people, but then suppressed the evidence. We all know that for many years the tobacco industry has suppressed evidence about the effect of smoking on health in this country and many others, but evidence exists.
	I turn to the Government's proposals. The White Paper states that they
	"propose to regulate, with legislation where necessary, in order to ensure that:
	All enclosed public places and workplaces (other than licensed premises . . . ) will be smoke free;
	Licensed premises will be treated as follows: all restaurants will be smoke-free; all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free; other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free; in membership clubs the members will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free; smoking in the bar area will be prohibited everywhere."
	I appreciate that that is not yet drafted in a Bill to be presented to the House, but I believe that the White Paper is poorly expressed, confused, probably unworkable and certainly undesirable for public health.
	The White Paper is poorly drafted because the words
	"regulate with legislation where necessary"
	leave open the possibility of a return to the failed voluntary approach to public health and tobacco. I shall not go into the debates that we held many years ago on tobacco advertising and the weak voluntary approach that Governments accepted for many years. That did not stop our young children being exposed to tobacco companies' advertising; indeed, it was probably impossible to do that.
	A voluntary approach will simply encourage the most backward elements in the pub trade to try to push the Government from the White Paper proposals to something closer to the failed public places charter, which was introduced the last time a Labour Government backed away from effective action on the issue. It was before my time in the House, but I have read about it often.
	The proposals are confused because there is no useful link between pubs that prepare and serve food, those that do not and smoking. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will not reply to the debate in detail, but consider giving powers to the Welsh Assembly. However, I emphasise that trying to draw such a link sends the most negative signals to the general public about smoking and their health. Smoking and people's health have nothing to do with whether people are eating, but with whether one is in a confined space, and the amount of second-hand smoke that goes into one's body and causes harm. It is about time that the Government decided to move positively if we are to meet their smoking cessation targets, which I support.
	The Government have done wonderfully well by putting money into public health and smoking cessation clinics, but all the professionals say that we will undershoot the targets in 2010. We will continually undershoot them if we keep sending out mixed messages about what secondary smoking does to us.
	I want to consider businesses. It is well documented that, in New York, Dublin and doubtless many other smoke-free places, the ban on smoking has had a positive effect on business. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North mentioned the national pub chain, J. D. Wetherspoon. For many years, it has been trying to create smoke-free and ventilated areas in its pubs. I have visited them and seen what the chain is trying to do but it knows that ventilation in public houses and restaurants is not the answer. The solution is to introduce a ban. It has decided to move far quicker than the Government, not because the White Paper is perceived to be a threat to its business but because it understands that its premises will probably be the pubs of choice for people who can go to them and be in a smoke-free atmosphere.
	The Forum of Private Business conducts the referendums that are regularly sent to us. I have the latest referendum result from 21 February 2005. The first question was about a ban on smoking in public places, and 71.5 per cent. of those in the Forum of Private Business voted for a ban. I hope that it seems a sensible and practical measure to most hon. Members. We are making the national health service smoke free and it is therefore ridiculous to do that while allowing some smoking in public places, which could easily be stopped by proper legislation.
	I hope that the Bill, which gives the National Assembly for Wales the power to ban smoking in public places in Wales, will be supported. I also hope that people in England will have the opportunity to make the same decisions to protect the health of the nation by protecting us from second-hand smoke and the effects of smoking.

Win Griffiths: Surely the point has already been made that the White Paper falls short of the proposals in the Bill, and that it is therefore important to raise the wider issues and not be content with the halfway house that the White Paper proposes?

Betty Williams: I thank you for calling me to speak so early in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a very great pleasure to be able to speak in support of the Bill being brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), and I congratulate her on the stand that she has taken on this issue. She has worked hard for many years on it.
	Given the proposals in the health White Paper published earlier this year for a partial ban on smoking in public places, some might wonder about the need for the legislation that is being proposed today. However, I believe that the Government's proposals strengthen the case for this Bill. Every argument that is made in favour of the proposals in the White Paper raises the question: why not go further now? Why do we lack the will or the courage to tackle the health time bomb that is second-hand smoke? Do we really believe that we will not be revisiting these proposals four or five years down the line in order to strengthen them?
	As in so many fields previously, Wales has shown itself to have the will to push forward further and faster. The all-party vote of the Assembly in January 2003 called for powers over smoking in public places to be devolved to Cardiff. That has been backed by opinion polls showing that more than three out of four people in Wales support legislation along the lines of that recently introduced in the Republic of Ireland.
	My hon. Friend's Bill is in response to an overwhelming demand from the people for decisive action. Throughout this Parliament, we have heard encouraging noises from the Leader of the House about the possibility of the Government acting to devolve this responsibility. Sadly, as yet, no action has been forthcoming. Nevertheless, I believe that there is some understanding in the upper reaches of Government as to the illogical situation in which we currently find ourselves. Responsibility for the health of the people of Wales is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, yet it is handicapped by having no power over one of the areas of public policy in which its intervention could have greatest effect.
	In Wales, 30 people die per year as a result of passive smoking, and countless more contract serious medical conditions. The policy that permits smoking-related illnesses to develop is made here in Westminster, yet the Assembly Government in Cardiff must pick up the bill to provide support to those who develop such illnesses. The bill to the NHS in Wales for treating smoking-related diseases amounts to between £75 million and £85 million per year. When responsibility for health was devolved to Scotland, the power to regulate the use of tobacco in public places went with it, and the Scottish Executive is in the process of using those powers as an integral part of its public health policy. If it is right that protection against second-hand smoke should be given to the people of Lanarkshire, why should it not also be given to the people of Llandudno and, indeed, Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogychwyrndrobwll-llantisiliogogogoch on the Isle of Anglesey?
	Wales, of course, is not alone in its desire to push for stronger measures than those proposed in the White Paper. The concerted campaign by Liverpool to become a smoke-free city, ably supported by my hon. Friends representing the city, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), has been an inspiration. In October last year, the leaders of all 33 London boroughs agreed to ask for powers similar to those that we are requesting for Wales today.
	The international wave of interest in limiting smoking in public places is not coincidental. It results not just from an ever-increasing body of evidence that passive smoking kills but from the discrediting of myths perpetrated by the tobacco industry that jobs and profits in the leisure and entertainment sectors are dependent on the so-called right to smoke. With an ever-increasing list of nations and cities becoming smoke free, the tobacco corporations are unable to point to any reputable evidence that the hospitality industry has been harmed in any significant way by the introduction of such restrictions.
	In New York, as we have heard, receipts in bars and restaurants increased by nearly 9 per cent. in the first year after the city banned smoking in public places. The tobacco lobby also raised the unlikely spectre of a collapse in visitor and tourist revenue in areas that implement a smoking ban. Liverpool is flying in the face of that claim by prominently linking its campaign to its 2008 European capital of culture celebrations. Surveys conducted in Liverpool found that more than three quarters of visitors were bothered by smoke in enclosed public places. Twenty-one per cent. of respondents said that they would be more likely to visit Liverpool in the future if a ban were introduced, with 72 per cent. saying that it would make no difference.
	The experience of the Republic of Ireland, with a ban now in effect, supports those figures. During the first year of the ban in 2004, tourism rose by 3.2 per cent. over the previous year. It would be foolish to attempt to present a causal link between those two events, but the evidence is clear that this type of legislation does not put off potential visitors.
	Surely, if a nation's or city's tourist appeal rests solely on the right of visitors to smoke in its pubs and restaurants, it needs to take a long, hard look at its publicity campaigns. We sell Wales largely in terms of its dramatic scenery, fascinating heritage and fresh air. This last attraction will be all the more credible if it extends beyond the mountainside into all enclosed public spaces.
	While it is easy enough to establish that a ban is possible and workable, we also need to make the positive case for such a measure. A ban's opponents will speak a lot about rights—they will say little about responsibilities or the need to balance rights. No one proposes to remove the supposed right to smoke, merely to find a way of balancing it with others' rights not to be subjected to second-hand smoke.
	We will be told that a voluntary scheme will suffice by giving consumers the choice of smoking or smoke-free environments. A voluntary scheme already exists in Britain—it has led to just 1 per cent. of pubs becoming smoke-free. That hardly equals consumer choice. Nor will a voluntary scheme do anything to help staff in pubs, clubs and restaurants, the people who suffer the worst effects of passive smoking. Customers might be able to choose their environment; employees are not so lucky. It is estimated that in Britain, one bar worker a week dies from second-hand smoke. The only choice that they are given currently is the classic one of working people the world over—between their job and their health. That applies in relation to slate quarrying, coal mining, asbestos and many other industries in which generations went to early deaths because of their working conditions.
	We will be told that proper ventilation and no-smoking areas will solve the problem. But those are partial solutions at best. In most public settings, it will prove impossible to provide effective separation of smoking and non-smoking areas, nor will they help staff who must continue to work in smoky environments. The British Medical Association tells us that no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke has ever been established. Such measures cannot therefore be seen as a long-term solution. Ventilation systems in premises are, of course welcome, but they fail to provide anything approaching full protection. Atmospheric physicists have warned that to be fully effective in removing second-hand smoke from the air, any ventilation system would have to produce something approaching a tornado-like gale. That seems no surprise given that pollution levels in a smoke-filled room can reach 50 times those in a busy road tunnel.
	The words of Dr. Hans Kristian Bakke, President of the Norwegian Medical Association, are worth noting. Explaining why Norway has been smoke-free since June 2004, he said:
	"Passive smoking kills 500 Norwegians each year. We now know that half measures such as designated smoking areas and ventilation cannot protect health . . . These measures were simply not good enough. There is no reason for others to repeat this experiment."
	Given the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, it is impossible to contend that segregated areas or improved ventilation can come anywhere near fulfilling our World Health Organisation commitment. Since 24 February, all WHO signatories have had a duty under the framework convention on tobacco control to
	"adopt and implement measures, providing for protection from exposure to tobacco smoke in indoor workplaces, public transport, indoor public places and, as appropriate, other public places."
	An increasing number of the 193 WHO member states that voted unanimously for the agreement are reaching the conclusion that a total ban on smoking in public places is the only way of providing the protection required by the protocol. Given the often remarkable successes of the bans that are already in effect, that is not surprising.
	Smoke-free environments do not just benefit those suffering the effects of second-hand tobacco. There is also evidence that banning smoking in public places helps those who do smoke to quit. The social aspect of smoking which has become so deeply ingrained in many cultures can be challenged effectively only by the removal of smoke from the vast majority of social settings.
	Society can send no stronger message about the dangers and antisocial aspects of smoking than the message that it is unacceptable in social, commercial or cultural interaction. Such a step could be worth more than all Government health warnings in conveying the seriousness of the anti-smoking message. It could, at a stroke, reduce the peer-group pressure that is instrumental in encouraging many young people to take up smoking. If smoking immediately becomes less visible, its attraction will inevitably fade. According to evidence from the Republic of Ireland, in the six months leading up to enforcement of the ban 7,000 smokers quit, with sales of cigarettes falling by almost 16 per cent. over the same period. Tobacco sales have continued to fall following the ban's introduction.
	The combined effects of a reduction in passive smoking and a decreasing number of tobacco users can have impressive effects on public health. In California, which in 1998 was the first American state to become smoke-free, lung cancer rates have fallen six times faster than in states that have not introduced such laws. That statistic alone makes a convincing social, medical and economic case for the introduction of legislation banning smoking. I believe that if this Parliament is not prepared to do that on a national basis, it is only right for Wales—which has some of the highest levels of smoking and smoking-relates diseases in the United Kingdom—to be able to follow Scotland and makes its own decisions.
	Public support is already there, and can only strengthen as more and more of the leading overseas tourist destinations become smoke free. Ireland, Italy, New York, California, Sweden, Norway and even Cuba, the home of the Havana, have introduced bans. Now clean air in enclosed public places begins to seem less like an exotic novelty and more like an aspiration within our grasp.
	Of course a ban on smoking in public places must also include political environments, and Wales has already taken that step. To mark no smoking day last week, it was announced that from July all Welsh Assembly Government buildings would be smoke-free zones. I regret the fact that the Palace of Westminster may again end up following the devolved Assemblies in banning smoking, rather than leading them.

Edward Garnier: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) on coming so high in the ballot and on introducing this Bill. I think she would be the first to admit, or at least would confirm, that it is largely a descendant of two similar Bills introduced in the House of Lords by, respectively, Lady Finlay and Lord Faulkner of Worcester. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) pointed out, both Bills received close attention from the Committee to which he referred in the early part of 2004, and both Committee reports commented that, irrespective of their content, the Bills were not appropriate vehicles for the adjustment of public policy that they proposed.
	Before dealing specifically with this Bill, may I briefly—and I hope not improperly—use the opportunity of a Bill containing the word "Wales" to congratulate, I hope on behalf of all Members, the soldier in the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, Private Johnson Beharry, who has been awarded the Victoria Cross? That is a great achievement, and I hope we can all put aside our differences on the Bill and extend our congratulations to him.
	Given that I represent a seat in England, Members may wonder what on earth I am doing speaking on a Bill relating to Wales. I suppose my only connection with Wales, apart the fact that I have been there a number of times on private visits, is that I went to university in Wales—but a bit of Wales that happened to be in Oxford. Jesus college Oxford is a bit of flying Wales, like flying Flint: it is peopled mostly by Welsh undergraduates. I felt very honoured to be able to go to that part of Wales to study modern history.
	The college bar at Jesus is, I understand, a "voluntary" smoke-free area. That is fine: if the undergraduates and other members of the college want it to be smoke free, that is entirely a matter for them. I am not sure, however, that it needs to be a matter of public legislation. The Bill may be well meaning and well motivated, but I feel that it approaches the subject from the wrong angle, uses the wrong legislative machinery, and ironically—despite the hon. Lady's motives—will not achieve what she intends. She intends to reduce the incidence of harm to people in Wales caused by smoking. She and I have similar views about the detrimental effect of smoking on health, and no doubt we would both prefer not to sit in tobacco smoke-filled environments; but she intends to achieve her purpose by banning smoking in public places as defined in the Bill.
	Let us suppose that I have a house in Wales, and open my garden for a church fete. To get into the garden, people must pay 50p or £1 at the garden gate. According to the definition in the Bill, the garden would then become an enclosed premise, and smoking in my garden—to which I had invited people so that, on payment of a small sum, they could look at my flowers or shrubs—would become an offence.
	It seems to me wholly disproportionate that people living in my imaginary village in Wales and wanting to visit my imaginary garden—although they may be smokers, who may or may not know of the law that the hon. Lady wishes to pass—should be subject to a fairly severe summary penalty that would make the raising of church funds that much more difficult.

Edward Garnier: "High" is a very wide word. In my constituency, the percentage turnout was in the high 70s at the last election, whereas the national average was in the low 60s, or perhaps the high 50s. It is a side point, and much as I would like to discuss the figures with the hon. Gentleman, I want to concentrate on the Bill.
	I want to ask the House whether, before it is enthusiastic in its desire to suppress unhealthy smoking, it will allow itself to damage the constitution of the United Kingdom. I wish to highlight the powers in the Government of Wales Act that the Bill wishes to amend. Clause 4(4) states that certain paragraphs of schedule 3 to the 1998 Act should
	"apply to the power to make an Order in Council under this section as they apply to the power to make an Order in Council under section 22 of that Act."
	I do not want to anticipate what the Minister will say, but I want to let him know my views on passive devolution. I voted against the referendum and against devolution, but I accept that it is the law of the land and that the Welsh Assembly as presently constituted is a legitimate creature of statute and a child of this Parliament. However, I have a suspicion that it would be wrong to alter the 1998 Act by means of the Bill. I say that as a matter of constitutional theory, but also as a matter of political opinion reflected by the people of Wales.
	In 2003, the Economic and Research Council research programme on devolution and constitutional change asked voters what their reaction would be to a hypothetical event, the abolition of devolution in Wales. Some 39.5 per cent. said that they would be sorry while 60.5 per cent. would be either pleased or indifferent. I immediately enter the caveat that I do not know what the base figures were on which these percentages are based, but in so far as opinion polls are useful at all, they tell us that devolution is not the hot issue, or even the lukewarm issue, that it was prior to the Act.
	Let us be clear about what the Government of Wales Act allows and what the Bill intends. The Assembly functions are set out in sections 21 and 22 of that Act, and in the schedule. Section 21 says:
	"The Assembly shall have the functions which are . . . transferred to, or made exercisable by, the Assembly by virtue of this Act"—
	the words "by this Act" are important, as no other legislation is involved—or
	"conferred or imposed on the Assembly by or under this Act or any other Act."
	The hon. Member for Cardiff, North might say, "I am not outside the thrust of the provisions of the Government of Wales Act, because my Bill comes within the definition 'any other Act'." However, I am reasonably confident that that was not in the contemplation of the Government, still less of the House of Commons or the other place, when that legislation was going through its legislative process in 1997 and 1998.
	Only certain ministerial functions are transferred to the Assembly under the 1998 Act, and those are referred to in section 22:
	"Her Majesty may by Order in Council . . . provide for the transfer to the Assembly of any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales . . . direct that any function so far as so exercisable shall be exercisable by the Assembly concurrently with the Minister of the Crown, or . . . direct that any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales shall be exercisable by the Minister only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, the Assembly."
	What is the Secretary of State allowed to do under the Act? He is allowed to enter into discussions to listen to the representations of the Assembly about which secondary legislation it wants to have discussed and introduced through the Assembly, but he is not allowed, off his own bat, to provide for the Assembly the power to make primary legislation. That is essentially what the Bill is trying to do. It would provide to the Assembly primary legislative powers subsequently to make regulations as to where people may smoke and who would be subject to the criminal penalties that come with the new offences in the Bill.
	If the hon. Member for Cardiff, North wishes to persuade me and, I hope, the Minister, who represents the Crown in these matters, that what she intends is a good idea, that must be done, it seems to me, through the machinery of the amendment of the Government of Wales Act, discussed as a Government amendment in Government time on the Floor of the House in a proper and considered way, not just by a few of us on a Friday.
	We know that 20 Members voted at 9.35 this morning. Even all those who are present in the Chamber and listening to the debate do not come anywhere near making a sufficient number to change the constitution of our country in the way that the hon. Lady would like.

Edward Garnier: Clearly not, but I cannot command the House. I can address it and seek to persuade it, but I can seek to persuade only those who are here. There may be others busy in the Library who are itching to come to vote for the Bill. There may be still others in their offices—heaven forefend, watching their monitor as we discuss the Bill—who are itching to vote for the Bill. However, I have yet to be persuaded by argument, deployed in the House, that the Bill would do anything other than, by the back door, passively provide for unintended devolution—unintended in the sense understood in respect of the Government of Wales Act.
	I was discussing the functions of the Assembly that have been transferred from Ministers of the United Kingdom Government. The procedure by which those functions are transferred is tightly prescribed. Section 22(2) says:
	"The Secretary of State shall, before the first ordinary election, lay before each House of Parliament the draft of an Order in Council under this section making provision for the transfer of such functions in each of the fields specified in Schedule 2 as the Secretary of State considers appropriate."
	Schedule 2 is not a schedule that the Bill would amend, although I suspect that it is one that the Bill should have contemplated, because it deals with the fields in which functions are to be transferred by the first Order in Council.
	Under the Act or the schedule, the first Order in Council transferred 18 separate items of public policy or public administration. Item 7 deals with health and health services. To some extent, I accept that a Bill dealing with smoking touches on health and health services. We know that if there were no smoking anywhere in this country, that would benefit the national health service budget. We also know that it would have a damaging tax effect on the Treasury. In so far as we are talking about health and health services, however, there is room, had Parliament intended it, for action on smoking to be dealt with as a devolved issue in the Assembly, although it was not.
	I shall not, because it would be an improper use of our time, simply list items 1 to 6 and 8 to 18 of the other matters, but I shall come on to schedule 3, which is referred to in the Bill, and consider how the hon. Member for Cardiff, North wishes to amend the Government of Wales Act, as well as whether her Bill would do what she intends and what the Government intended when they persuaded us to pass that Act in 1998.
	Clause 4(4) states:
	"Paragraphs 1, 5, 9, 10 and 12 of Schedule 3 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 . . . apply to the power to make an Order in Council under this section as they apply to the power to make an Order in Council under section 22 of that Act."

Win Griffiths: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) on her success in the ballot and her decision to introduce a Bill to ban smoking in public places in Wales. We all know that in the time immediately before we sign the book for the ballot for private Members' Bills, we are inundated with requests from all sorts of organisations to take up their particular cause, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend decided to take up this issue.
	The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) have raised legal and constitutional issues on the Bill, as did the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and such matters could be discussed in Committee, along with the practicalities of the measure.
	I also pay tribute to Baroness Finlay for the work that she has done both through the Bill that she introduced in the other place and in publicising the extremely damaging effects of smoking on people's health, particularly in connection with cancer, where she is an expert.
	In the Welsh Assembly, the former and current Ministers for Health and Social Services, Jane Hutt and Dr. Brian Gibbons, have tried to raise the profile of this issue, because it is so important in health terms. A number of hon. Members have mentioned that in January 2003, Welsh Assembly Members voted 39 to 10 for such a Bill to be introduced to enable it to do this work. There was a majority in all parties, and the leaders and health spokespeople were all of one mind. That is important for us when we consider the Bill.
	I do not want to reiterate all the arguments that have been so ably advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), as well as by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), all of whom have clearly explained the damaging effects of cigarette smoking on health, and the impact of passive smoking on people who are not smokers but are caught in public places where smoking is allowed. They have also clearly set out all the economic arguments to show that, in the hospitality industry, restaurants, bars and other public places, banning smoking brings about an improvement in trade and business rather than a reduction.
	I have no financial interest to declare, but I do have an acute personal interest, because I am an asthmatic. Asthma did not come to me as a youngster, although I am looking back to my early 30s. I have been a pretty fit person; I have been active in the sports field and I was a regular player in the Cardiff squash league. I became an asthmatic at that time, and the doctors are still not absolutely sure what caused it, although my own trial and experiment suggests that there is some ingredient in alcohol that has an adverse effect, so I do not take alcohol at all, other than in its cooked form in sauces and so on.
	It is clear from the research, including in particular the work done by Ulrik and Lange and published in 2003 in the Monaldi archives for chest disease, that the condition of asthma sufferers is made far worse when they come into contact with smoke. Some 26,000 people in Wales have this problem, as I do, and when asked, 80 per cent. of them said that they were acutely aware of the fact that smoking makes their condition even worse.
	I want to add my personal experience. As a Member of Parliament going to public places and an individual who might want to enjoy a day or night out, I have frequently had my enjoyment damaged and spoiled by cigarette smoke. It does not even have to be immediately next to me; in restaurants, I have had problems with smoking and non-smoking areas. Even though I might be as far away from a smoker as I currently am from the Front Bench, the smoke always seems to drift in my direction. Within a very short time, my eyes will be watering and my chest tightening, and I will have to leave. Asthmatics in particular have that experience, but people who do not smoke often have a similar one. I therefore believe that we are right to discuss the issue.
	The hon. and learned Member for Harborough raised some questions about the sort of places that might qualify as enclosed public spaces for the purposes of the Bill. He raised the examples of a public event for charitable purposes held in a private house and garden, and of a football ground at which an amateur club charges for entry. Such matters should be discussed in detail in Committee, so I will not debate them at length, but the detailed issues about how the legislation might work require examination.

Andrew Stunell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) on her position in the ballot and her choice of Bill. I support the measure not as a Welsh Member but as someone who represents a constituency in the borough of Stockport, which had the misfortune a few years ago to be the first local authority that had to pay out on a passive smoking compensation claim by an employee. It has been, perhaps understandably, sensitive to the issue ever since. I am a non-smoker and I declare that I have done no pheasant shooting in Bedfordshire.
	My party also strongly supports the principle of devolution and was in favour of the Welsh devolution measure. We are fervent supporters of the Assembly and its power, so when we have a proposal before us to allow the Welsh Assembly to mitigate the damage caused by passive smoking, it gets a tick in two boxes. I want to express the particular support for the measure of my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). [Hon. Members: "Where are they?"] Unfortunately, neither of my hon. Friends can be here today. A huge majority of Conservative Members also support the Bill.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North on her presentation of the measure. She had a well argued case and she produced plenty of graphic evidence. I do not want to waste the House's time by repeating those arguments; I simply note that the number of deaths from passive smoking is three times as high as that from industrial accidents. Yet I suspect that we spend more legislative time and public money on dealing with the industrial accidents issue than with that of passive smoking. Several hon. Members mentioned the impact of passive smoking on children, and I believe that that is its most pernicious effect.
	The Bill allows Wales to legislate. If it did not, we might have an interesting position whereby we had legislation for England that did not apply in Wales. It is therefore right for the House to pass the Bill. It has the advantage of being popular: it has 78 per cent. support according to the MORI poll; the sort of ratings that we all wish that we had. It would work: the Library briefing's evidence about New York and Ireland shows that a ban is an effective instrument when applied. When we have legislation that is popular, that is life saving, and that works, it seems to me that the House should not spend too much time in debate, and should simply get on with it.

Eric Forth: I would certainly view it with rather more sympathy than I am prepared to give this Bill. Given my starting point, I am not sure that I am happy about giving anyone authority to introduce a ban—other than, perhaps, this United Kingdom Parliament—but if there is to be one, I would feel marginally more comfortable about its imposition at city or district level rather than at regional level.
	The logic of my argument leads us finally to a workplace decision. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North told us that one chain of public houses had made its own decision, on a commercial basis, to declare all its premises smoke-free. I respect that decision and wish the chain well. As I told the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), it has always puzzled me that the 75 per cent. of people in this country who are consumers and voters do not exercise their market power and direct their custom towards premises that have declared themselves to be smoke-free. I am a great believer in the power of the market and the consumer, and I think that that is the direction in which people should be looking.
	If people are non-smokers or find smoke objectionable, why do they not always take their custom to restaurants, pubs or other outlets that have made the brave commercial decision to become smoke-free? I have never understood that. The hon. Gentleman told us the tragic tale of how he went into smoke-filled rooms and, because he is asthmatic, ended up wheezing and with streaming eyes. The thought occurred to me—why did he walk into them in the first place? If most of his friends do not smoke, as they probably do not, why do they not organise themselves to go to a place where there is no smoke? Why do they not bring to bear the really effective influence on businesses: the power of the market and of expenditure? I would feel much more comfortable with that approach than with a heavy-handed law being brought down willy-nilly across the country or across regions regardless of individual circumstances.

Tim Loughton: We have had a full and thorough debate, in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have made interesting and well-informed contributions. We heard first from the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan). She has the best intentions, which I applaud, and I congratulate her on securing fourth place in the ballot. Whatever the merits of the Bill—we can argue over its wording—I certainly congratulate her on successfully continuing to focus on the curse of smoking. We would all agree that we need to do much more to address that.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) apologises that he is not in the Chamber because he has to attend an event in Birmingham. He is a long-standing champion against the dangers of smoking. Although I do not necessarily share the conclusions that he reached during his speech, I respect his frank views. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is also a long-standing champion of the cause and he told us about the experiences in New York of such legislation.
	The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who is not in the Chamber, made interesting points about the possible inappropriate constitutional aspects of the Bill. He also raised examples of anomalies and unintended consequences that could result from the Bill, such as the possible situation at the Roman site of Silchester in his constituency. I am sure that English Heritage would have something to say if it had to put signs about smoking around parts of Silchester.
	The hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) talked about problems in the workplace and focused on the experiences of employees, which is a legitimate concern. In a detailed and typically legal speech, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) raised all the possible anomalies that the Bill and other legislation to ban smoking would bring. He gave us various examples of unintended consequences, such as what could happen if he were to invite a church fête to use his house—I am sure that he would allow that, given his generosity. He also talked about the consequences of the Bill for a village football club. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), who is also not in the Chamber, gave us the Welsh angle.
	Unusually, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was not in expansive mode, but none the less he gave us an incisive critique of some of the flaws in the wording of the Bill. He also pointed out the fact that it cuts against something that he has always stood up for: the rights of individual adults to make informed adult choices.
	The problem that we face is well known, so I shall not repeat all the figures that we have. Despite everything that has been done over many years, 25 per cent. of people in England still smoke. The figure in Wales is a little higher at 26 per cent. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North said that smoking has quite a large social class gradient. In social class 1—I am not sure what that stands for, but it is the terminology that we are given—15 per cent. of men smoke, but as many as 45 per cent. of men in social class 5 smoke, which is three times as many. It is especially worrying that 10 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-olds are deemed to smoke regularly.
	Smoking causes 121,000 deaths a year throughout the United Kingdom and more than 7,000 a year in Wales alone. It causes one in three cancer deaths and 90 per cent. of lung cancer cases. It remains the single largest cause of death and disability in the United Kingdom and costs the NHS at least £1.7 billion a year. Smoking is also reducing the female advantage of life expectancy and widening the social class divide in mortality.
	There is evidence—more needs to be provided, I agree—about the effects of passive smoking. The International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk and exposure to second-hand smoke. Exposure varies, but it was found that someone dancing for four hours in a nightclub in a city such as Vienna or Barcelona was likely to be exposed to as much second-hand smoke as someone who lived with a smoker for a month. No doubt the same effect is apparent in nightclubs in Wales. We might have to ask someone such as Charlotte Church to give us an authoritative statement on that.
	The agency also calculated that non-smokers who live with a smoker have a 20 to 30 per cent. greater risk of lung cancer than they would in non-smoking households. The vulnerability of children especially concerns most people. It has been calculated that some 17,000 children under the age of five are admitted to hospital each year on account of the effects of smoking. We have heard figures on the effect of smoking on workplace health as well.
	All of us in the House and outside are agreed that smoking is a thoroughly nasty habit. The Conservative party is committed to doing everything it can to encourage as many people as possible to kick the habit once and for all and, more importantly perhaps, to deter impressionable teenagers from taking it up in the first place, even if the Secretary of State for Health described smoking as one of the few pleasures remaining to single mothers on council estates.
	I question the success of the Government's policy so far. In January, the Public Accounts Committee produced a report that showed that more than two thirds of quitters took up smoking again within 12 months of quitting. The British Medical Journal recently reported that smoking cessation services are having only minimal impact and are way off course to reduce smoking prevalence from 26 per cent. to 17 per cent. by 2011, to meet the Government's target. In 2003–04 the smoking cessation programme reduced smoking rates by between only 0.1 and 0.3 per cent. and will deliver less than 1 per cent. of the target fall, which is extremely worrying.
	Much more needs to be done to provide a much greater variety of smoking cessation services, which at present concentrate largely on nicotine replacement patches. A great deal more needs to be done to address the problem of teenage smoking, not least the pressures from peers and the images of sporting and TV celebrities that influence children. On its own, the ban on tobacco advertising introduced by the Government will not achieve the desired result. We need to do more, but I am not sure that the Bill is the answer, although I applaud the good intentions of the mover.
	Let us consider the Bill on three levels. First, regardless of what the Bill is about, it is designed to give extra powers to the Welsh Assembly, and it needs to be judged on that basis. Secondly, should the Assembly be doing other things to improve health generally in Wales? Thirdly, is an outright ban the best way to promote health? With regard to the powers of the Welsh Assembly, another anomaly of devolution is thrown up. The Assembly has responsibility for health promotion in Wales. Under the Government of Wales Act 1998, the National Assembly should have control over all aspects of public health in Wales, including food safety, but excluding international issues where the Department of Health or other agencies lead for the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will deal with that anomaly when he explains why smoking is not covered by that public health agenda.
	I recognise, as hon. Members have already mentioned, that previous attempts have been made to enact such legislation, with the noble Baroness Finlay of Llandaff introducing a Smoking in Public Places (Wales) Bill in the Lords in December 2003. Lady Finlay was reflecting the will of the Assembly, which had voted for a ban on smoking in public places in January 2003 by a pretty large majority. The cross-party motion carried by the Welsh Assembly on 22 January 2003 called upon the UK Government to bring forward a public Bill relating to Wales that would give the Assembly powers to prohibit smoking in public places. The motion will now be included in the list of proposals for primary legislation submitted later this year by the Assembly to the Secretary of State for Wales for consideration by the UK Government, as the spokeswoman for the Welsh Assembly Government said after that debate back in January 2003. But no such primary legislation has since been allowed in Government time. It was reported that Labour Assembly Members had complained to the Secretary of State for Wales about the failure to introduce a Bill to ban smoking in public places. Since the vote in the Welsh Assembly, a Committee on smoking in public places has been established to determine how a ban may be introduced. Its terms of reference have been set out and that Committee is due to report by the end of March 2005.
	The Secretary of State for Wales appears to have back-tracked, and has recently in any case called into question the whole wisdom of hurrying through outright bans on smoking in public places, as his own Government had appeared to set out in the public health White Paper "Choosing Health", published only last November. So this is a spat between the Secretary of State and his Government and the Welsh Assembly, and it is they who need to sort the whole thing out, and in Government time. A private Member's Bill is not the way to do that—it is not the medium for such a constitutional tangle.
	On 3 March 2005 the Secretary of State said:
	"We are not able to support my hon. Friend's Bill"—
	the Smoking in Public Places (Wales) Bill—
	for various reasons"—
	which I hope again the Minister will allude to and provide details of—
	"but in terms of the thrust of the policy that it contains she will find that we are with her in spirit."—[Official Report, 3 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1109]
	We would like to know what that means in practice, and I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us.
	The Opposition are opposed to the Bill on the basis that it will give further powers to the Welsh Assembly without first consulting the people of Wales in a referendum. It is clearly set out that we can debate whether the Welsh Assembly is to have further powers, but the decision should be made by the people of Wales through a further referendum and after a proper consultation process. On that basis, the Bill fails to meet our criteria.
	The Scottish Parliament has the power to ban smoking in public places, and on 17 December 2004 it introduced a Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill to bring in a comprehensive ban to cover all enclosed public spaces from March 2006. It is perfectly entitled to do so. That was in the legislation setting up the Scottish Parliament. That is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
	Furthermore, as has been pointed out by several. Members, we are likely to face other such anomalies and other similar pieces of legislation for parts of England. The Liverpool City Council (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill had its First Reading in the upper House on 24 January 2005. I think that it would have had its Second Reading in the upper House last Friday if both Houses of Parliament had not been detained on other matters, and we would have seen what would have happened to it there. Many of us will have seen the literature produced by the SmokeFree Liverpool campaign. London may be looking to do the same, and will be applying to this House for legislation to enable bans on smoking in public places. But this is no way to proceed. There will be chaos between certain parts of the country. There will be chaos where borders lie. Smoke, like pollution, is no respecter of municipal boundaries.

Tim Loughton: I do not need to research the matter too closely to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the United States has a population five times the size of this country's population, and it is a much larger country that is less densely populated. It is easier for states to introduce bans or other legislation relating to local tax and so on than it is for this country to do so. In places such as London, where there are 30 or 40 different boroughs, restaurants and pubs on different sides of the same street may be in ban and no-ban areas. The situation is very different from that in the United States, and it is a recipe for chaos.
	I am all for a localism agenda. My party is all for giving back many more powers to local authorities that are accountable to local people to make decisions for local circumstances. That is absolutely right, but smoking in public places is a national public health issue. It is this House that should be legislating or not legislating on a national issue as part of a Government's national public health agenda. Otherwise, there will be an open season, and an awful lot of the time of the House will be taken up in considering the requests of whichever town or local authority has decided to apply for a ban. We will be faced with a legislative timetable nightmare.
	Should the Welsh Assembly be doing other things? I applaud the fact that it has produced a number of initiatives to deal with smoking cessation. It has produced the Smoke Bugs club for eight to 11-year-old children who pledge not to smoke. Club members receive positive messages about staying smoke free via quarterly newsletters to their home. A "smoke-free class" competition offered to pupils in years seven and eight is part of a European initiative that currently involves 16 countries. Pupils enter as a class and pledge not to smoke for the five-month competition period. There is also a "smoke signals" resource for smoking education in the primary school, for pupils aged from three to 11, and a "burning issues" resource that looks at smoking as a social issue and is designed to be used in a variety of subjects.
	The Welsh Assembly has produced programmes through the inequalities in health fund that was established in 2001 by the Minister for Health and Social Services in order to stimulate and support local action to address inequalities in health and the factors that contribute to it, including inequities in access to health services. The fund supports a total of 62 active projects, covering a wide variety of activities that target coronary heart disease. Many good initiatives are under way in Wales and I applaud that, but I hope that it is a matter of quality outcomes, rather than simply quantity of initiatives.
	In other respects, however, Wales is lagging well behind England in health care and the quality of the health of the population and of the service provided. I believe that the Welsh Assembly should be concentrating on improving that parlous situation rather than on the high-profile headlines that a smoking ban brings, which are no substitute for doing something to improve the health system of the country as a whole and health outcomes for the people of Wales, who are being let down badly by the Labour party in the Welsh Assembly.

Tim Loughton: I will take your blandishments, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	We are considering giving further powers to the Welsh Assembly Government, who are currently not handling such powers in the best health interests of their citizens, which concerns me.
	That brings me to my third point: is an outright ban is the best way forward? Conservative Members do not think so. A lot of progress has already been made under the voluntary code with, for example, the hospitality industry. In the recent past, 26 companies representing 40 per cent. of the UK's pubs and bars have committed to a new no-smoking strategy, agreeing that by the end of December 2005 they will have in place no smoking at the bar, which has already been mentioned, no smoking in back-of-house areas, an increase in no-smoking trading floor space from a minimum of 35 per cent. to a maximum of 80 per cent. by December 2009, and a minimum of 50 per cent.—in future, that percentage is intended rapidly to increase—of restaurant dining area floor space being designated as no smoking. Companies will also continue to develop exclusively smoke-free pubs and bars, where it is appropriate and practical.
	Office for National Statistics figures from July 2003 indicate that via a voluntary approach, 86 per cent. of workplaces have a smoking policy—either an outright ban or separate smoking areas. Of the remaining 14 per cent. of workplaces, five per cent. consist of single-worker businesses, where an individual is well placed to make up their own mind whether they will smoke. Some 50 per cent. of those workplaces are completely smoke free, and by 2003 the number of pubs with non-smoking areas was in the region of 46 per cent.
	A number of hon. Members have also mentioned that the home is one of the most common places in which passive smoking occurs, and that children are among the most vulnerable. One side effect that has been experienced following smoking bans in other countries, without setting too great a store by such evidence, is that off-licence and supermarket sales of drink have increased because people are drinking socially at home so that they can smoke, which means that they can smoke in front of children. The amount of alcohol sold by supermarkets now represents more than 50 per cent. of total alcohol sales, up from some 13 per cent. 20 years ago. The whole dynamics of how people buy their alcohol and where they enjoy it have changed. We must be mindful of the fact that such legislation will have detrimental consequences if we drive smoke into another confined place where the most vulnerable citizens may be the victims.

Don Touhig: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) on bringing her private Member's Bill to the House. She has worked hard to raise awareness of, and generate public debate on, smoking in public places, in both Wales and the wider community. Such a debate continues the process of helping people to understand the serious effects of smoking on themselves and others, and to make informed decisions.
	No one doubts the effects of smoking on the population. It can cause misery and pain for individuals and their families through serious disease or, worse, death. Every year in Wales, around 6,000 people die from smoking-related illnesses, which represents almost one in five of all deaths in Wales. The Government are addressing the problem of smoking through widespread education support programmes for those who want to quit, and we have achieved an enormous amount since we came to office in 1997.
	Tackling second-hand smoking is an equally high priority for the Government, and the White Paper, "Choosing Health", which was published last year, sets out a package of measures that will progressively make almost all enclosed public places and workplaces in England smoke free by 2008. That will save thousands of lives and I join my hon. Friend in seeking, as a matter of urgency, the best way for Wales to reduce the number of deaths from cancer, heart disease and all other diseases caused by smoking.
	The Government are working in partnership with the Welsh Assembly and do not intend Wales to be left behind in this crucial matter of health protection. The Assembly is implementing a comprehensive package of smoking prevention and smoking cessation measures in support of what the Government are doing. They include initiatives to discourage young people from starting to smoke, and to encourage and support smoking cessation and smoke-free public places. The Assembly's corporate health standard—the quality mark for workplace health development in Wales—encourages organisations to develop and implement non-smoking policies and to protect workers from passive smoking. All those initiatives are having an impact on the population.
	In recent years, several countries have introduced measures against smoking in enclosed places, including the Republic of Ireland, Italy and Norway, and the Scottish Parliament is considering legislation to end smoking in all public places and workplaces. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to those matters.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who had the courtesy to advise me that he was unable to stay for the end of the debate, asked why the National Assembly for Wales does not have the power to ban smoking. The Government of Wales Act 1998 provides for only existing ministerial powers to be transferred to the Assembly. There are no such powers in existence, so primary legislation is the only way in which to give the Assembly that power.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred to the health White Paper and some of its conclusions. The debate is continuing in Wales because the Assembly has a committee examining the issue.
	I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who is a long-standing campaigner. When I was successful some years ago in the ballot for private Member's Bills he tried to persuade me to take up this issue. Instead, I introduced a Bill to protect whistleblowers. I commend his commitment and dedication to this issue.
	My right hon. Friend said that there may have been mixed messages in what the Government are trying to do and in what they say. When the White Paper, which sets out our intentions clearly, was published, the 2004 report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health was also published. The report states that new evidence reinforces and strengthens the conclusion that exposure to second-hand smoke is the cause of lung cancer, heart disease, asthma attacks, childhood respiratory disease and sudden infant death syndrome. However, the report did not produce exact estimates of overall deaths nor of deaths due to exposure in different settings. As we said in "Smoking Kills":
	"Breathing in other people's tobacco smoke also kills."
	The vast majority of deaths and disease from second-hand smoke is due to breathing in second-hand smoke in the home. Several hon. Members referred to that.
	The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) asked why the Government do not support the Bill, and I shall deal with that later. However, he was worried about the Assembly's having powers that were too wide. There is no fixed parameter for the scope of secondary legislative powers; for example, Henry VIII powers can be used to amend primary legislation. The question is what is appropriate for the Assembly to be able to do. Parliament has adopted a specific approach to each Bill. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Health (Wales) Bill and the Welsh Affairs Committee's request to include a smoking ban in that measure. As the Minister who took the Bill forward, I can tell him that the Assembly did not ask for the inclusion of such a provision.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) made several points. Like other hon. Members, she referred to the comments that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales made on 3 March in his capacity as Leader of the House when answering a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North. He said:
	"We are not able to support my hon. Friend's Bill for various reasons, but in terms of the thrust of the policy that it contains she will find that we are with her in spirit. She will also be encouraged by subsequent legislation that we intend to introduce, which will give Wales the opportunity to implement policies in the way in which the National Assembly choose."—[Official Report, 3 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1109.]
	My right hon. Friend was right. We always try to work through consultation and in partnership with the Assembly in drafting legislation to try to meet the Assembly's aspirations. However, until the relevant Committee of the Assembly has reported on its deliberations and the Assembly has debated the report and decided exactly what it wants to ask of the Government, it would not be proper for me to enter into any commitments.

Don Touhig: When the report is published, the Assembly will debate it and eventually ask us for a Bill. I am sure that the report will inform the Government's response. I shall revert to that point in my concluding remarks.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy asked, "Why not go further now?" The proposals in the White Paper are a major step forward. They will make almost all public places and workplaces smoke free. I believe that we shall save thousands of lives by doing that, but our policy is to balance the different and conflicting views expressed by the public. Again, in the Welsh context, we await the report from the Assembly's Committee.
	The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) began by paying tribute to Private Johnson Beharry of the 1st Battalion Princess of Wales Regiment, who was awarded a Victoria cross today. All hon. Members share in the congratulations to that brave soldier and to all the soldiers—men and women—who serve Britain throughout the world. I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks. His contribution was interesting. He began by describing an imaginary home in Wales and how the Bill would affect him if he were to hold an event there to raise funds for a church or organisation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that, as a Welsh girl, you will appreciate that since Wales has done so well on the rugby field lately, many people are now discovering that they have Welsh grandparents or Welsh aunts and uncles. Everyone now wants to be Welsh. I commend the hon. and learned Member for Harborough for his comments in that regard, and I hope that he will join us in celebrating when we win the grand slam on Saturday.
	The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to talk about the Bill's constitutional implications, at which point "passive devolution" was mentioned. I wondered whether anything prevents devolution from being taken forward by a private Member's Bill. There is nothing to prevent that from happening, although clearly, it would not be a suitable way of achieving a major change, certainly as far as primary legislation or tax-raising powers are concerned. I would not seek to deny my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North the opportunity to introduce a private Member's Bill in this way—indeed, as someone who has introduced a private Member's Bill in the past, I strongly defend Members' right to introduce legislation through that channel—but I would say to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough that there is not a great deal of difference between us on how we believe Parliament should determine the question of future devolution.
	I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who will be leaving us at the general election. He will be greatly missed. He highlighted the fact that our colleagues in the Assembly voted in January by 39 to 10 in favour of a ban, and pressed the Government to take the measure forward at that stage. I have no doubt that, at some stage, when legislation is enacted, that will be taken fully into account.
	The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) thought that a ban in Wales might come as a result of a ban in England, and that it might come in on England's coat-tails. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. The hon. Gentleman knows that, in constructing legislation in partnership with colleagues in the Assembly, there is always a great deal of discussion. When the Assembly wishes to pursue a particular agenda, we shall seek an appropriate legislative vehicle to take forward that agenda in this House. He mentioned the impact of a ban on trade and tourism in his constituency, which is in a most beautiful part of Wales. That important point gives us all the more reason to await the Committee's report, so that we can consider the views of all the interested parties before taking a final decision on legislation.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made an important contribution, stating that we should be conscious of the views expressed in the Assembly. We certainly want to do that, and at an appropriate time when legislation comes forward, we shall do so.
	The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) started his speech as he often starts his speeches on these occasions: he underpinned his continued opposition to making legislation, which is a perfectly valid and proper view to hold. He went on, however, to say that he would exercise an unusual degree of self-discipline. I am not sure whether that might present an ideal opportunity for a private Member's Bill, and perhaps we could introduce counselling for Members involved in seeking self-discipline.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made some important comments. When he started, I thought that he was going to say that the Opposition would support the Government when we introduce legislation on a ban some time in the future. However, his comments turned out to be nothing more than warm words. He made a number of points on the delivery of the health service in Wales. You rightly pulled him up at that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you would recognise that what we are doing in Wales is putting right 18 years of underinvestment from when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power, during which time it closed 70 hospitals and cut training for nurses and midwives. Now we have more doctors and more nurses, and only yesterday, we announced new targets for the health service in Wales—

Don Touhig: I take note of what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	How do we proceed from here in a sensible manner, bearing in mind the complexities of the situation and the strong feelings that have been expressed, both for and against a ban? [Interruption.] I note the comment made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove from a sedentary position, and he might be interested in what follows this debate.
	Our White Paper proposals on anti-smoking measures in England came as a result of extensive consultation with stakeholders. It is essential that any legislation on such an important matter should be informed by consultation with those most affected by its implementation—the general public as well as businesses and public organisations. The equivalent consultation is still under way in Wales. I know that my hon. Friend is aware that the Welsh Assembly set up an all-party Committee last year to consider how best to tackle the problem of second-hand smoke, and smoking, in public places in Wales. Therefore, the Government believe that it would not be wise to set out proposals for Wales before that committee reports, which is due to happen in May. Any recommendations that the committee makes, based on consultation with stakeholders, will, I hope, be an accurate reflection of the needs and wishes of the people of Wales. Such recommendations will help to inform the Government's view on future legislation on smoking.
	In the light of what I have just said, I believe that this Bill is premature. While the Government share the concerns that have led my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North to introduce it, we are also concerned to ensure that the views of all stakeholders are taken into account. I also have a number of concerns about the Bill as drafted in relation to technical questions, particularly enforcement and cross-border matters.
	For example, the Bill proposes to provide enabling powers for the Assembly to prescribe a ban by regulations. It would be possible, under the current devolution settlement, for the Assembly to be given additional public health powers for that purpose. I am not clear, however, that the role of the enforcement and policing agencies has been fully taken into account in the Bill's drafting. On the role that the police and legal system might be required to take on—we must bear in mind that police and criminal justice are not devolved and are reserved matters—I am concerned about the Bill's cross-border impact. Should local authorities become involved in enforcing a ban in Wales, it is possible that there would be practical difficulties in implementation, especially as the cost of that has not been calculated. With such issues outstanding, I am not confident that the Bill can deliver a practical and workable arrangement for effectively banning smoking in public places in Wales.
	Let me emphasise that the Government are committed to ensuring that there is a major step forward in providing smoke-free environments for people to live and work in. In his preface to "Choosing Health", my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said:
	"In moving forward the public health agenda in England, we recognise that some of its proposals will have implications for other parts of the UK."
	He stated:
	"We will work closely with colleagues in the devolved administrations to identify these, so that joint action can be taken where appropriate and legislative opportunities provided for the devolved administrations where . . . new powers are created for England".
	I suggest to my hon. Friend that that presents an excellent opportunity to introduce legislation for smoke-free public places and workplaces in Wales, and we are committed to making that happen.
	Notwithstanding my comments about my hon. Friend's Bill, I hope that she can take comfort from the Government's approach, which I have outlined. I am sure that she would agree that we need the case for a ban to be made, with full consultation on all the issues, and after the report of the Assembly's Committee has concluded, the Assembly's deliberations and proposals should be put directly to the Government. I hope that she will not be too disappointed, and I hope that she will join me in wanting to ensure that whatever legislation is proposed recognises both the views and the needs of the people of Wales and provides the most practical vehicle for implementation.
	While I regret that I cannot support my hon. Friend and her Bill for the reasons that I have given, she can be in no doubt that the Government share many of her hopes and will seek to resolve this matter before too long. Once again, I thank her for presenting the Bill to the House and for providing the opportunity for this debate.

It appearing on the report of the Division that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in the Division, Madam Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.

Phil Willis: It is a pity that, after the procrastinations of Conservative Members earlier, we do not have more time to debate the Bill. One of the key issues arising from the Court of Appeal judgment in what has become known as the Harrogate case highlights a confusion that lies at heart of Government policy—the view that that there are no health risks to be considered in respect of planning, while we hear from the Department of Health that there are indeed such health risks. In the light of the response of the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) earlier this week, does my hon. Friend believe that, whether or not his Bill succeeds, the Government must make it absolutely clear that health risks should be taken into consideration in dealing with planning applications?

Yvette Cooper: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate on this important issue, and taking the opportunity to talk about something that I know is important to his constituents and the work that they have done on community websites, but which also affects community groups throughout the country.
	I am aware of the work that has been done by the Twickenham community portal in uniting its community online and providing a public platform for local people to express their views on a range of issues. I agree that community websites can play a powerful role in supporting local groups; providing information and opportunities for community action, often very rapidly in response either to concerns or to opportunities; giving people more chance to exercise advocacy and leadership through alternative ways of communicating; and even encouraging participation in the democratic process. Government and councils have a role in supporting all kinds of community activity, including online activity.
	Although there are many successful community websites, the provision of online information and services by community groups varies greatly. Some have considerable capacity, innovation and enthusiasm, while others have very little capacity, skills or expertise in using online information or methods of communication. We are therefore providing support and resources to make it possible for more councils to support community groups in that way. We are doing so through a number of projects, which I want briefly to outline in addressing the key points that the hon. Gentleman made.
	Community information is one of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister e-government priority outcomes for 2005. The Department is supporting councils to deliver integrated information about services for the community, which may include services delivered by local partnerships. We also need to do more in terms of community groups. The environment and community online residents e-services—ENCORE—national project is working towards improving access for citizens to local environment and community-related services. Funding is also being provided for the development of a software application that local authorities can install if they want to do so, so that local community groups can create and maintain their own websites using the application. Its aim is to enhance the ability to find information about services published online by community and voluntary organisations, as well as by parish councils, many of which currently experience difficulties and technical and infrastructural problems in extending knowledge to local users.
	The local authority websites, or LAWs, project has also developed community engagement modules, which include software requirements, system architecture documents and code and installation instructions. The Department is also supporting an organisation called mySociety.org, which is working in partnership with West Sussex county council to build tools and applications to enable people to organise community activities. One such project is PledgeBank, whose primary aim is to facilitate community action by local people, promoting civic participation and strengthening engagement. We are also working with the National Association of Local Councils to improve the capacity of parish councils to have effective websites.
	In addition to supporting community groups, the Government are also working on wider projects. Some of the work is done by the Home Office. One Home Office-backed project is Future-builders, a £125 million investment fund project run by a voluntary and community sector consortium. The project is designed to assist voluntary and community organisations and social enterprises in their public service work, and to help them modernise their operations, including improvements to websites and e-services.
	Finally, GuideStar UK, which is an independent charity, has proposed to construct a common base of information about the finances, operations, activities and effectiveness of all charities and not-for-profit organisations operating in the UK. That will take the form of a free-to-access website serving a range of customers, including charities, funders, policy makers, media and researchers.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to funding difficulties and asked whether there was potential to improve access to advertising revenues for community websites. There is always a funding issue in respect of community and voluntary groups, and it is often debated at a local and national level. That is why funds are available so that local authorities can provide support to local community and voluntary organisations for a wide range of activities, including websites where that seems appropriate.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the interesting issue of more access to advertising revenue, and I will raise it with the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), who works in that area. The hon. Gentleman obviously recognises that local councils and local government must ensure that they get value from their advertising budgets, the purpose of which is to reach particular audiences for recruitment or other purposes. Local authorities must ensure that they get good value out of that budget.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised some wider issues about potential conflicts of interest between different kinds of websites and different ways of communicating. A thriving local civic society and local community organisations that can work with local authorities on a wide range of issues are of huge benefit to local authorities, particularly in areas in which there are regeneration projects, but also in areas in which there are local environmental projects and so. I do not see that there must be a conflict of interest between local councils and voluntary groups on such issues, and that relationship can be very positive.
	The hon. Gentleman compared the current situation with the regulations covering the broadcast media, but it is probably beyond my scope as an ODPM Minister to respond to his concern, except to say that he raised some interesting points for future debate.
	Finally, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that websites and the internet can be huge resources for voluntary and community groups, but in the end, websites are just facilitators for activities, events or projects organised by local community groups. Websites are an important modern tool, and the ODPM agrees that they should be available to community groups across the country, which is why we have supported a wide range of infrastructure tools and other help for local community groups, and why we will continue to do so.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Three o'clock.